I only watched part of this diavlog but I wanted to chime in on one particular part. At one point Glenn talked about the way that Confederate celebration can be used by people with racist tendencies to have a chance to get in a little subtle dig against what they see as the constraints of political correctness. John responds with a "meh, I don't see it."

I wonder how thick his blinfold is. John, take just a cursory glance at the comments section here at bhtv once in awhile and you will see MANY examples of this sort of sentiment from right-wing commentors. It's staggering how often discussions of racially-tinged topics like the Civil War go off on tangents about affirmative action and political correctness to the point where the resentment of blacks becomes distressingly apparent.

In another example of how this works, just today a co-worker of mine (white male from relatively upper-middle class family) joyously showed off how he bout a bunch of Negro League Baseball commemorative stamps and thinks it will be funny to use them for mailing in our neighborhood (which is predominantly black). Another co-worker from the Inland Empire (kinda the desert boonies of LA) chimed in and they started laughing about how it's Black History Month, and isn't EVERY month black-history month nowadays, and how "they" want to take EVERY month away from us, and they take over our sports etc. Anyways, this is the kind of less overt racism that I hear all the time, even from people who are not the typical gun-rack truck driving Southern stereotype. It's the kindof sly racism that is even more disturbing to me, and I think presents a much bigger challenge to real efforts at equality.

So while obviously I have been privvy to different things than John McWhorter (this kind of thing would rarely be uttered in front of a black person) I'm surprised at his ignorance to it's existence and his eagerness to write off Glenn's suggestion.

This is exactly the sort of "gray" area I try to address here. These people will swear to abhor racism and usually mean it. It's kind of like how we all find lying wrong yet still do it often, if subtly.

Full admission: when I was younger I hung out with a lot of people like the ones you mentioned. And I even uttered some things and held some views that I would not be proud of today. I loved a good edgy joke (still do) and thought "well it's just words, it's not how I really feel so whoever is offended is just missing the point or trying to censor!!1! me etc." until someone I greatly respected pointed out that all the listener has to go on are my words, so of course they may jump to the conclusion that I was racist if I was saying things that were borderline. Furthermore, maybe it was time to ask whether or not I was? It was one of those life-changing moments of self-reflection and inquisition, and I decided that I didn't want to be that way anymore. It didn't jive with the kind of person I wanted to be. After that, I was amazed at how much of that sort of gray-area subtle racism I would hear all the time from people that I would not categorize as racist. Most people in that camp (as you described) do an amazing job of insulating themselves and avoid ever having to ask that same question of themselves.

I don't think I agree with this, though there are some excellent points here. For me, Loury hit the crucial point by saying that the incident occurred in public, and within the context of a public institution. I think the apology could come either from the professor himself or, perhaps better, from the university, from one of its administrators. But apology there should be. Nor does one have to have the feeling that an apology puts an end to the affair, than an apology squares things. To the contrary, there can well be the acknowledgment on both sides that no apology is adequate to the crime, that forgiveness will not be complete, and so on. He who apologizes can make amends without making things good.

I don't agree with McWhorter's attitude. If there is an affront to taste in a comedy club, then the club should be made aware that it is sponsoring unacceptable behavior, that you, the client, won't be back, unless something is done, a change in policy, an apology, something. The "above it all" stance of McWhorter does not work for me at all. I am well aware that "affronts to taste" are in the nature of comedy, so what I am talking about would necessarily be very egregious and would probably be fraught with the danger of censorship in any event, but the Michael Richards incident can probably serve as a good example. My impression there is that Richards was forced to apologize but that he was genuinely contrite, that he had lost it, did not live up to his professional obligations, and had paid the price. I did not read a huge amount about the incident, but my impression is that Richards did discover a darker side of himself that frightened him and of which he had not been entirely aware.

McWhorter said several things in this dv with which I disagree fundamentally. In particular, I don't understand why he is so confident that there will never be a post-racial America. Never is a long time. I would find it more convincing if he said that there will always be prejudice of some kind, though not necessarily prejudice based upon "race."

"A woman who is a direct descendant of the Rhode Island DeWolfs, who would become the largest slave trading family in the United States, invites several of her family members to travel in the footsteps of the Triangle."